| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V WOODS (2023 WL 7555387) | A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of three specifications of wrongful use of cocaine in violation of Article 112a, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for nine months and dismissal. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant asserts that: (1) the court-martial lacked jurisdiction over him; and (2) he was denied his right to speedy post-trial processing. We conclude the court-martial had personal jurisdiction, but we grant partial relief for unreasonable post-trial delay.
Decision
Only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for eight months and a dismissal is approved. We determine that the findings and sentence, as modified, are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as modified, are affirmed. | Docket No. 1481 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/15/2023 | 11/15/2023 | | 11/15/2023 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V JAMES D (2023 WL 7557349) | A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of three specifications of possession of child pornography and one specification of distribution of child pornography in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for six years, reduction to E-1, forfeiture of all pay and allowances, and a dishonorable discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant asserts that: (1) he suffered illegal pretrial punishment; (2) his counsel were ineffective for failing to address or request credit for pretrial confinement conditions; and (3) he is entitled to relief for unreasonable post-trial delay. We conclude there was no prejudicial error and affirm.
Decision
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as approved below, are affirmed. | Docket No. 1485 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/15/2023 | 11/15/2023 | | 11/15/2023 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. ROSE (MERITS) | Per curiam:
A special court-martial consisting of a military judge alone under Article 16(c)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of one specification of negligent dereliction of duty in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-5 and a punitive letter of reprimand. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors.
Decision
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as approved below, are affirmed. | Docket No. 1489 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/19/2023 | 12/19/2023 | | 1/10/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. CHOCK (84 M.J. 578) | A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of one specification of abusive sexual contact, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for ten months and reduction to E-1. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, Appellant has assigned as error that his due process right to timely appellate review was violated when the Government delayed providing notice of his right to appeal and ultimately took 213 days to transmit his record of trial to this Court.
These delays bespeak a lack of institutional diligence and are unreasonable, warranting some relief. The Government unquestionably has responsibility for required post-trial processing, including sufficient knowledge and supervision to accomplish it in a timely manner. This includes responsibility for correctly assembling the ROT and attachments. As we noted in United States v. Woods, No. 1481, 2023 WL 7555387 at *4 (C.G. Ct. Crim. App. Nov. 15, 2023) (unpublished), both quality and timeliness of records have been suffering in recent years, and improvement to post-trial processing is important to the integrity and perception of military justice in the Coast Guard. We look forward to such improvement, which we are aware is being pursued.
We will disapprove one month of Appellant’s sentence to confinement.
Decision
We determine that the findings are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty are affirmed. Only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for nine months and reduction to E-1 is affirmed. | Docket No. 1490 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 2/20/2024 | 2/20/2024 | | 2/27/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. RICHARD (84 M.J. 586) | A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to her pleas, of one specification of involuntary manslaughter of a child, in violation of Article 119, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for six years, a dishonorable discharge, and reduction to E-1. Judgment was entered accordingly.
We conclude that the specification failed to provide adequate notice of the act(s) or omission(s) on which the involuntary manslaughter conviction was based and that this error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Accordingly, we reverse and do not reach Appellant’s remaining assignments of error. | Docket No. 1484 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/5/2024 | 3/5/2024 | | 3/19/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HADLEY (MERITS) | Per curiam:
A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of one specification of abusive sexual contact, in violation of Article 120, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for four months, reduction to E-1, and bad-conduct discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors.
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as approved below, are affirmed. | Docket No. 1492 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 3/20/2024 | 3/20/2024 | | 3/20/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V TRUITT (84 M.J. 721) | A military judge, sitting as a special court-martial, convicted Appellant of four specifications of violating a lawful general order in violation of Article 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). One specification was for violating ALCOAST Commandant’s Notice (ACN) 003/20, dated 7 January 2020, by sexually harassing SN SA. The remaining three specifications were for violating the Coast Guard Standards of Ethical Conduct Manual, COMDTINST M5370.8B, para. 7 (1 March 2002), by directing her subordinates to use official time for acts outside their official duties and to use government property for other than authorized purposes. The military judge sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-5 and a letter of reprimand. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant now raises four assignments of error (AOEs), paraphrased as follows:
I. The specification alleging sexual harassment in violation of a lawful general order fails to state an offense;
II. The evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support Appellant’s conviction for sexual harassment in violation of a lawful general order;
III. The specifications alleging violation of the Standards of Ethical Conduct Manual fail to state an offense, and the evidence is legally and factually insufficient to support those guilty findings; and
IV. Appellant was denied the right to trial by a panel of members at a special court-martial in violation of the Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment. | Docket No. 1488 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/2/2024 | 7/2/2024 | | 7/2/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. LOPEZ (UNPUBLISHED) | A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of two specifications of indecent recording, in violation of Article 120c, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The military judge sentenced Appellant to confinement for three months, reduction to E-1, and a bad-conduct discharge. The convening authority (CA) disapproved one month of confinement. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Appellant raises four assignments of error (AOEs):
I. The Government’s failure to execute the CA’s action reducing Appellant’s period of confinement violated his Fifth Amendment right to due process.
II. The trial counsel committed prosecutorial misconduct by failing to communicate the convening authority’s action to the confinement facility.
III. The Deputy Judge Advocate General (DJAG) of the Coast Guard engaged in unlawful command influence by seeking to have the Coast Guard Investigative Service (CGIS) close its investigation into a formal Inspector General (IG) complaint about Appellant’s illegal post-trial confinement, obstructing both Appellant and this Court from uncovering direct evidence about the trial counsel’s misconduct, which has negatively affected the fair handling of this case.
IV. This Court erred by denying Appellant’s motion to compel production of direct statements and evidence relating to his illegal confinement, hindering his ability to identify and fully support claims of error before this Court.
Decision
Only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for two months and a bad-conduct discharge is approved. Appellant shall be paid 26 days of pay and allowances at the E-4 rate. We determine that the findings and sentence, as modified, are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as modified, are affirmed. | Docket No. 1487 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/11/2024 | 7/11/2024 | | 7/11/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V BROWN (2ND) OPINION (UNPUBLISHED) | A military judge sitting as a special court-martial convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of three specifications of disrespect toward a petty officer and one specification of violation of a lawful general order prohibiting sexual harassment, in violation of Articles 91 and 92, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). The court sentenced Appellant to reduction to E-4, a reprimand, and restriction for thirty days. The convening authority approved the sentence. Judgment was entered accordingly. Approving Appellant’s timely application, the Judge Advocate General, U.S. Coast Guard, sent the case to this Court pursuant to Article 69(d), UCMJ.
Decision
Only so much of the sentence as provides for a reprimand and restriction for thirty days is approved. The current reprimand, which references the sexual harassment conviction, is set aside. A revised reprimand shall be substituted. We determine that the remaining findings and the newly reassessed sentence are correct in law and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the remaining findings of guilty and the sentence, as reassessed, are affirmed. | Docket No. 001-69-21 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 7/19/2024 | 7/19/2024 | | 7/22/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V ALBERT (MERITS) | A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of one specification of drunk and disorderly conduct, in violation of Article 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ); and one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer, in violation of Article 133, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to no punishment. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted his case on its merits as to any and all errors.
Decision
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as approved below, are affirmed. | Docket No. 1499 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/2/2024 | 8/2/2024 | | 8/2/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | In re CLIFFT (84 M.J. 729) | Petitioner seeks extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of error coram nobis setting aside his 2016 conviction due to alleged interjection of extraneous prejudicial information into the panel members’ deliberations. We conclude he does not meet the stringent requirements for this extraordinary relief and deny his petition.
The alleged error here is considerably more benign than a juror concealing that he already knew facts about the case based on prior participation in a grand jury, Mayer, 235 U.S. at 57, or the foreman of a jury sharing with other jurors unfavorable information about the defendants that had not been introduced at trial, Mills, 221 F.2d at 1203. Yet, as discussed, neither of those was deemed fundamental for purposes of coram nobis. More so here. Despite the members’ alleged exposure to the putative victim’s emotional outburst, we can presume the members followed the military judge’s instruction to “consider only the evidence presented in open court” and to “impartially resolve the ultimate issue of the guilt or innocence of the accused in accordance with the law, the evidence admitted in open court and your own conscience.” R. at 1302; United States v. Taylor, 53 M.J. 195, 198 (C.A.A.F. 2000).
Accordingly, we conclude that Petitioner fails to meet the threshold requirement of showing that the alleged error is of the most fundamental character.
Decision
Petitioner’s petition for extraordinary relief in the form of a writ of error coram nobis is DENIED. | Misc. Docket No. 001-24 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/14/2024 | 8/14/2024 | | 8/15/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V HARRIS (MERITS) | Per curiam:
A general court-martial of members with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of one specification of domestic violence, in violation of Article 128b, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-2 and a bad-conduct discharge. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, without admitting that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact, Appellant has submitted this case on its merits as to any and all errors.
Decision
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as approved below, are affirmed. | Docket No. 1496 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 8/29/2024 | 8/29/2024 | | 8/30/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V. GRIJALVA (2024 WL 4559274) | A general court-martial with enlisted representation convicted Appellant, contrary to his pleas, of six offenses: making a false official statement; obstructing justice; wrongfully broadcasting an intimate visual image; accessing a computer application without authority and with intent to defraud; using without authority a means of identification of another person; and creating a profile on a computer application with intent to defraud—in violation of Articles 107, 131b, and 134, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to confinement for three months, reduction to E-3, and a bad-conduct discharge, and judgment was entered accordingly.
Decision
Only so much of the sentence as provides for confinement for one month, reduction to E-3, and a bad-conduct discharge is approved. We determine that the sentence, as reassessed, is correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the sentence, as reassessed, is affirmed. | Docket No. 1482 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 10/24/2024 | 10/24/2024 | | 10/24/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V TAYLOR (2024 WL 4656849) | A special court-martial consisting of a military judge alone under Article 16(c)(2), Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ), convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of one specification of failure to obey a lawful general regulation, in violation of Article 92, UCMJ. Appellant was sentenced to reduction to E-5 and restriction for 30 days. The convening authority disapproved the restriction,1 leaving only the reduction to E-5. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Before this Court, Appellant has assigned as error that Appellant’s due process right to timely appellate review was violated when the government delayed providing notice of his right to appeal and ultimately took more than a year to transmit his record of trial to this court. The delay is largely attributable to the loss of the record of trial.
Post-Trial Delay: Due Process
Appellant asserts his right to due process was violated because 460 days elapsed from the date he had the right of direct appeal until his record of trial was transmitted to this Court, including 373 days that are attributable to the Government. We disagree. | Docket No. 1503 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 11/4/2024 | 11/4/2024 | | 11/5/2024 |
| Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | UNITED STATES V EUBANKS (2024 WL 5058698) | A military judge sitting as a general court-martial convicted Appellant, consistent with his pleas entered in accordance with a plea agreement, of one specification of indecent exposure and one specification of conduct unbecoming an officer and gentleman, in violation of Articles 120c and 133, Uniform Code of Military Justice (UCMJ). Appellant was sentenced to pay a fine of $8,000 and a reprimand. Judgment was entered accordingly.
Decision
We determine that the findings and sentence are correct in law and fact and, on the basis of the entire record, should be approved. Accordingly, the findings of guilty and the sentence, as approved below, are affirmed | Docket No. 1500 | Coast Guard Court of Criminal Appeals | 12/11/2024 | 12/11/2024 | | 12/11/2024 |